This case involved a workplace injury to Patrick McCarthy, an employee of Kinder Morgan, who was struck and fell when the manway assembly separated from a pressurized railroad tank car during a liquid transfer. McCarthy and his family sued the railcar owner Sterling Chemicals, maintainer Rescar, and others for negligence, leading to a jury verdict in favor of Sterling and Rescar after directed verdicts for other defendants. The trial court later granted plaintiffs a new trial on grounds that jury instructions inadequately addressed the relationship between common-law duties and statutory or regulatory duties. On appeal, the court reversed that order, holding that the arguments in the second new-trial motion were waived because they were not raised in the first motion or were already resolved in prior appeals, leaving the trial court without authority to grant relief. The judgment was reversed and remanded with instructions to reinstate the defense verdict.
The case involved David Rose's appeal from his conviction for felony non-support of dependents under R.C. 2919.21(B), stemming from his failure to pay court-ordered child support after losing his job in 2005. Rose argued that the trial court erred by excluding a transcript of a phone call with a child support agency caseworker as cumulative evidence, that the conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence because he established the affirmative defense of inability to pay under R.C. 2919.21(D), and that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by being unprepared. The court overruled all assignments of error and affirmed the conviction, finding the transcript duplicative of trial testimony, that Rose failed to prove the affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence, and that counsel's performance met the standard for effective assistance with no prejudice shown.
Ramon Yslas appealed the dismissal of his Civ. R. 60(B) motion claiming a violation of his speedy trial rights under R.C. 2945.71. The trial court treated the motion as an untimely petition for post-conviction relief under R.C. 2953.21 and dismissed it as barred by res judicata, since the claim could have been raised on direct appeal. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that any speedy trial violation would have been apparent from the trial record and that Yslas had executed a written waiver of his speedy trial rights on May 17, 2005, after his March 6 arrest, which extended the deadline beyond his October 28 plea and conviction.
Rory Walker was convicted by a jury of tampering with evidence and possession of cocaine. On appeal, he raised two assignments of error: first, that the jury venire violated his Sixth Amendment right to a fair cross-section of the community due to inadequate minority representation, and second, that the trial court abused its discretion by requiring opening statements during voir dire, which prejudiced his ability to question potential jurors about biases. The court overruled the first claim because Walker's challenge to the array was untimely under Crim. R. 24(F), as it was raised only after examination of the prospective jurors, and the record showed the selection followed standard random protocol from registered voters. The court overruled the second claim under plain error review, finding no objection at trial and no showing that the procedure clearly affected the outcome or amounted to an abuse of discretion. The judgment was affirmed.
The case concerned a dispute over the Jean Barger Rice revocable trust, which included specific charitable bequests for the care of abused and neglected animals funded by income from a 421-acre farm and other assets, along with provisions allowing the trustee to retain and reinvest surplus income. The trustee sought a declaratory judgment permitting distribution of growing undesignated income to additional charities beyond the trust's enumerated beneficiaries. The trial court granted the trustee discretion to make such distributions, effectively reforming the trust's application, and the appellate court affirmed. The core reasoning was that the trust instrument granted the trustee broad powers to manage and dispose of undesignated assets in a prudent manner, and the settlor's specific charitable purposes did not control surplus income outside the designated small trusts.
The case involved Miami County Prosecutor Gary Nasal's effort to enforce Ohio's sex offender residency restriction statute, R.C. 2950.031, against Edward Burge, who was convicted of a qualifying offense in 2000 but began living within 1,000 feet of a school in 2006 after the law's enactment. The trial court dismissed the complaint for injunctive relief, and the appellate court affirmed that decision. The court held that the statute does not apply to Burge because the Ohio Supreme Court in Hyle v. Porter determined it was not expressly made retrospective, and the subsequent ruling in State ex rel. White v. Billings extended that holding to bar enforcement even when the offender established residency after the effective date. The court further concluded that intervening Supreme Court decisions rendered moot any issues regarding the prior remand limited to an ex post facto analysis.